User talk:Foroa

I reply to messages on this talk page on this talk page. For readability, it is preferred to keep the discussions on the talk page where the discussion started, unless specifically requested otherwise.

I can read English, Dutch, French and some German. I'll do my best to reply in the language of the requester (except German, just too rusty) but don't laugh at me.

We have indeed a problem here. As you can read in w:Wind rose : "Historically, wind roses were predecessors of the compass rose (found on maps), as there was no differentiation between a cardinal direction and the wind which blew from such a direction", the meaning of "wind rose" has changed in the last decades. Since we have many historical images that are real "wind roses" that indicate the names and directions of the various local winds, I think that it would be better to rename the current Category:Wind roses to Category:Wind roses (meteorology) so that Category:Wind roses can be used for old wind roses. Unless you are prepared to watch this category permanently and to have this discussion over and over again. What do you think ? --Foroa (talk) 08:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

My main idea - don't mix real and historical ones, as you have initially done with several files. The names of categories are not so impotant from my POV. Just don't foget to change commons/commonscat parameters in respective en-wiki articles after renaming commons-cats. Alex Spade (talk) 16:41, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Destroying the work from others and blanking pages is no solution. This is in general a symptom of vandalisme. Normally, galleries are moved, but I see now that you created your own version so I "moved" it a posteriori. --Foroa (talk) 09:37, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you I was hoping that somebody will come and help me. As you understand I'm not a vandal. How should I do to ask for a deletion of gallery? --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:59, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I know now that you are not a vandal, but I have to address more than hundred of such cases per week. Galleries can follow the standard deletion procedure as for images and in some cases are eligible for {{Speedy delete}}. But in the cases above, just rename it and build on that. Bonnes fêtes. --Foroa (talk) 10:05, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you I will remember, it's not complicated. Happy New Year 2013! Merci --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:19, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Question - why did you do this? It is a completely useless move given that there is nothing disambiguatory. -mattbuck(Talk) 19:34, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Categories states clearly: The category name would be enough to guess the subject,, so don't tell me that this is the case for Category:Young Enterprise, which is basically not an enterprise, was categorised in Category:Enterprise which was intended for the Enterprise (ride), and which would be filled up within a year with plenty of things related to young enterprises (If you search on commons or en:wiki you will already find 4 or 5 items that are related to "young enterprise"). --Foroa (talk) 18:27, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion you have reverted my category change in File:Wappen Holtensen (Barsinghausen).png incorrectly. "Holtensen bei Wunstorf" does not exist. The correct term is "Holtensen (Barsinghausen)" for the village near Wunstorf. Would you please check it and remove the category again? A look at de:Holtensen and de:Holtensen (Barsinghausen) may facilitate the examination. Thank you --Losch (talk) 20:25, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Destroying the work from others and blanking pages is no solution. Blanking is often a symptom of vandalism. I am reviewing more than hundred of such cases per week. If the name is wrong, either issue a {{Move}} request or insert {{Better name}}. When we delete it then, at least the original author will know where it has been moved to. --Foroa (talk) 18:33, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey. I originally called the category "Nature at caracas" because I was about to add more images, but well, rl happens. As all images are taken by me, could you then rename it "Category:Files by Hahc21"? Thanks. — ΛΧΣ21 21:46, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Done The category name was incorrect and there are several Caracas, so if I would not have renamed the category, chances were that people would have categorised the images in some subcats of one of the Caracas trees. Please indicate what Caracas you mean and proceed with proper topical categorisation. Thank you. --Foroa (talk) 18:45, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm confused and in need of guidance. Your revert of my move attempt bears the comment, "Please follow move procedure, redirecets <sic> to non existing cats don't work." Well, COM:MOVE is the core guideline, so I started there. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:File_renaming says: "Responding editors should follow the instructions on the template." and I believe that's exactly what I did. The template says, " please remove this notice, replacing it with a {{category redirect|Église Saint-François de Lavaur}}". So I'm following that procedure, at least. If there's a category renaming procedure, please point me to it; I'm not aware of it; perhaps COM:MOVE should point to it, eh? I guess I did the wrong thing, but then there seems to be something wrong with {{tl:category redirect}}. What's going on? What's right, what's wrong? I've just moved the two files into the destination category. Now that I've done that, is it appropriate to revert your revert? --Elvey (talk) 04:27, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

There is indeed a problem with the documentation, which is corrected by now. Problem is that redirects to non existing categories don't work. I moved it now. --Foroa (talk) 07:26, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, I was asking for guidance, but I have no idea what you did or what you're talking about. I tried to figure it out. :-( Oh, somehow I missed the link to Commons:Rename a category. --Elvey (talk) 20:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. And now please redo the redirect, since one of the two parent categories (radio) of this category (radio broadcasting), is rightfully the subcategory of the other parent category (broadcasting). --Cqdx (talk) 18:04, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello! The Category:Gulzar was moved to Category:Gulzar (poet) by you recently. I did not understand the reason behind it. There seems to be nothing else on Commons that has same name and would conflict requiring a disambiguation. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 07:01, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I disagree as English Wikipedia list the main article for Kosovo only as region, not as Republic of Kosovo or as Serbian provinces the Kosovo, and on Commons Kosovo is listed in the Category:Unrecognized or largely unrecognized states. But well, I agree to leave it then in order not to start another war. --Bdx (talk) 11:22, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I gave up discussions and subsequent moves by the (self-proclaimed) Hebrew spelling specialists; it looks as if it is an art in its own right. I just try to keep the categories that have an en:wikipedia counterpart in line with the wikipedia. --Foroa (talk) 16:55, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Foroa, I updated Commonscat.py. It will now follow links in the deletion log. So for example I moved Category:American Hotel (Amsterdam). The bot picks this up and updated the link. You are one of the most active category movers here at Commons. Could you make sure you include "moved to <some category as a link>" in your deletion summary? That way you'll be sure that any links downstream will get updated. By the way, the deletion link in {{Move}} will do this. Thank you, Multichill (talk) 13:07, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I did so probably in the 29992 of the 30000 categories I moved lately. I try to find that back for blanked categories too.

(Reply made before the Dutch version) I am (and others too) keeping an eye on Special:WantedCategories to detect buzzy novice uploaders with wrong categories, so we can correct, create or signal them as soon as possible, so they can improve their categorisation. Obviously, if you load with your bots hundreds of categories that will stay there for weeks or months, Special:WantedCategories becomes unusable. Therefore I created Category:Rijksmonumenten categories to be classified to get them quickly out of the way while it is less work for you (or others did already) to HotCat the right categories. With your hundreds of downloads in the wrong non disambiguated categories, you give us a hard time to keep Category:Non-empty disambiguation categories while I noticed that some uploads are on the wrong end of the world. So, if you want to win some time, just classify your categories somewhere where they don't interfere with the others. --Foroa (talk) 11:54, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Could you please tell me what you've done here? This is completely incorrect! "Campana Reliefs" are an terminus technicus in Classical Archaeology! Some of them are from the Campana Collection. But there are a lot more in a lot of museums worldwide. And there are Reliefs in the Campana Collection who are NOT Campana Reliefs. Why you do such things, when you don't know what you are doing? I changed it back. Please never do things you don't know about. It only makes work for the others. annoyed: Marcus Cyron (talk) 23:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, we had a delinker failure for 2 weeks and a long backlog on COM:DL, so I did not take to verify thoroughly the requested moves. --Foroa (talk) 18:54, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

You might be right that Category:São Paulo City, a long standing category that has been created 7 years ago, is suboptimal and that Category:São Paulo city or Category:São Paulo (city) could be better. That does not mean that you have the right to redirect a category with many subcategories using the same extension to a new name because you like it better and without any formal discussion and agreement, such as COM:CFD or insertion of a {{São Paulo city}} in the top level category. When there seems to be an agreement or no objections, then it can be renamed along with all its subcategories that needs renaming. See Commons:Rename a category. --Foroa (talk) 18:03, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I didn't expect you to answer here, I thought you had not answer. Anyway... what should I exactly must do? Move the subcategories first? I have read the document about moving categories, but I don't know where to begin.

It is far better to rename such galleries (move/verschieben tab) to avoid such situations. A second way is just inserting {{Duplicate|Rhoden (Osterwieck)}} and an administrator will delete when he agrees. --Foroa (talk) 18:32, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello Foroa, I think that Marcelino Sanz de Sautuola‎ and Émile Cartailhac‎ have be out the category Altamira (cave), because, not all the pictures in each category are related with Altamira. If you include these men in Altamira and the related pictures too you will have a redundant categorization. There is another people related with the cave of Altamira (for example: Harlé, Breuil, Obermaier, Hermilio Alcalde del Río, ...) but it is not necessary put all of them into Altamira (cave) category just their pictures related with. Maybe the only person that it could be into Altamira Cave could be Sautuola because he was outstanding only for his work in the cave. Thank you for your time and sorry for my English, --Nachosan (talk) 15:45, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Your English is more than fine. The whole idea of Commons categories is not only classification but equally showing relations between things, so a person that is visiting the Altamira cave category can see immediately which persons have strong associations with the cave. Moreover, those persons might have written books about their findings; books that are not necessarily directly/exclusively related to the caves, but contain some information about it. --Foroa (talk) 18:44, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Hey, Foroa. Was suggested by Morning Sunshine to contact you. If you don't mind, could you help me with this please? I know such a tool exists; just don't remember where... Many thanks :) Rehman 14:34, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

What a pity to fall back to a national scale with the very broad "Plaques in Belgium". I was pleased to see there are smaller entities at city scale. Yet providing a filing system at province level seems a great improvement to cover what does not belong to a significantly large town. Thanks for clarifying your standpoint ! Olnnu (talk) 19:55, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Well it basically doesn't matter if there are 50 or 500 Category:Plaques in Belgium or in "Plaques in xx province"; those categories serve only for visual search, so the more concentrated they are, the better. Even when creating plaques per province, in the end, they will contain hundreds of items, so not a real improvement. As far as we know, nobody searches for some items in Belgium per province, so there are very few categories in Belgium per province. This is a long standing agreement of the Belgium user community that is documented in Category talk:Belgium and that never has been challenged seriously by "heavy" contributors to the Belgium Commons categories. It is confirmed by categorisation in other countries where some categories are per country only, others per province, district/city that the asymmetric approach just creates more complexity, maintenance problems and troubles without substantial gain. AS usual, the more simple it gets, the less problems. --Foroa (talk) 15:56, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

There is a long standing agreement of the Belgium user community that started in Category talk:Churches in Belgium and is kind of summarised in Category talk:Belgium that for cities and villages, significant churches, castles, town halls, ... that basically, the primary need for categories is to have lists by name, followed by lists by location. All this under the assumption that all items will get eventually encapsulated in their own category, which is confirmed every day. As a secondary need, we see "side-categories" to cover the "by type/style/model" needs. On the lowest need level is indeed the by province category, but only if it doesn't break the by name categories. Moreover, if would have by province categories, which we hardly have as can be seen in Category:Provinces of Belgium, it would mean that we add for each of the thousands of Belgium-level categories 10 extra subcategories, which certainly doesn't outweigh the advantages of the simplicity and maintenance free aspects of the basic system. --Foroa (talk) 06:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I have added, renamed or organised some of the categories regarding the buildings in Suceava, Romania. I've seen that you have modified some of my work, explaining that I shouldn't blank the categories. The categories that I've blanked were in fact renamed (actually, moved) and now they have a correct name. I've modified the categories that were left blank and I've tagged them with "Category redirected". Thanks for your interest!

Frankly, if all people would blank categories because they disagree on the name of it, Commons would become a strange cemetery full of litter. I guess that you would not like that other people would blank your categories because they don't like the name. For quick deletion of categories, the procedure consist of inserting {{Badname|Good name}} if another category names exist. Alternatively, {{Speedy|reason}} can be used.

Blanking the page makes that the category appears several days later in Special:UncategorizedCategories which we try to keep as empty as possible, but requires significant work as we have to analyse each case if it concerns vandalisme, mistakes, beginners work (that may need assistance) or just a plain categorisation problem. As a minimal courtesy to the creator, we should leave in the deletion summary a reason for deletion and if possible where it has been moved to. So following the standard procedure saves us all unnecessary work. Thank you and keep up the good work. --Foroa (talk) 05:59, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello and thanks for your interest in our work! As you have probably seen on my user page, I am a high school teacher in Greece, and we chose to upload our work on both school projects for Upper Secondary in the designated Commons Galleries. First of all, thanks for adding the right categories to the Wild Flora project, I had no idea where to put it! As for the 365 villages, I would just like you to explain the rationale behind the long list of categories at the bottom of the page. Is it a Wikimedia policy to categorize so "intricately"? Don't get me wrong! I would LOVE for all the categories to "fill up", like the Argostoli page (several are mine, I live in Argostoli). Just that all those red links perhaps "clutter" the page... thanks again, all the best from Kefalonia (sunny today... at least for now! Weather can change from sun to rain to hail three times a day, no exaggeration)--Saintfevrier (talk) 07:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

That's about what I understood by reading various bits and pieces, and why I tried to be of some help. Indeed, the best approach is whenever you have some sort of fixed structure, such as your villages, is to create the categories for it. Creating categories takes some upfront work, but once they are there, it is very easy for all uploaders to "drop" their images in it or to improve categories without impacting the other bits and pieces (modularity, you know very well). Then you can be sure that the doc is right, the links to wikipedia, ... You can insert {{Underconstruction}} for empty categories. I made the category list collapsible in the gallery (they can be removed, it was just a list of pointers) and added some example links to categories, but there could be links to wikipedias too. Thank you and enjoy. --Foroa (talk) 08:38, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Your help has been invaluable, thanks! As you can see, we followed up on the "365 villages" hidden category you created and started adding the code to all the photos we've uploaded... helps us keep all our images pooled in the same place, as e.g. I have one pupil who only uploads (at least for now), so it's easy for another pupil to pick up the former's images and integrate into the gallery. The best part is that this is the first time I've managed to get pupils enthusiastically involved in building the content: usually they hand over material and I do the uploading... now I have three of them working with their own accounts, and all I have to do is polish up their work:) Oh, which reminds me, another question, rather advice: in order to keep the galleries as streamlined as possible, I figured the best policy would be to provide titles in Greek and English, captions only in English (having mentioned that Greek descriptions are available on file page). What do you think? Of course if you look at the gallery right now, a lot of the captions are in Greek (not all my pupils are fluent in English, so I told them to do what suits them and I would afterwards go in and edit wherever necessary). Looking forward to your reply, thanks:) --Saintfevrier (talk) 21:29, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

The nice thing is that galleries have no language restrictions, so I would propose as a baseline Greek first, followed by English as far as possible. As a second level exercise, you could suggest to add the links to categories and assign a number of categories (links to wikipedia articles, cleaning out cats, summary, ...) to each pupil; a way of distributing the work. Enjoy. --Foroa (talk) 06:46, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Your deletion log entry for Category:Citadelle de Québec says only that it was moved to Category:Citadelle of Quebec. Like Siebot`s edit summary, it doesn`t say why the later category name should replace the earlier one. Are you aware of a policy or discussion which authorized this change?

Can I ask, if there was a good reason for renaming the category, why a redirection wasn`t left in place?

Note that I merely check and execute the requests from COM:DL; 10 to 20000 per year. Recently, I executed a backlog of a few hundreds because SieBot, the category mover bot, has been down for 3 weeks. For complaints, linkfixes and redirects, please talk to the original requester or simply fix it. --Foroa (talk) 16:41, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Foroa. It looks like a user you'd reverted a few times came back and re-added the same cats. I reverted them and full-protected the cat. INeverCry 18:21, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, this Polish user seems not to understand the concepts of circular and overcats. Tried that many times as anonymous user too. Maybe a Polish admin should try to talk with him, although he doesn't seems very talkative. --Foroa (talk) 16:50, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Kindly explain your actions and the need for them, or I shall report you for vandalism - MPF (talk) 15:46, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

This is obviously a disambiguation problem. No need to shout 'vandalism'. B.p. 15:53, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Very far from obvious. There are thousands of more obvious potential disambiguation problems which are not dealt with in the same way. - MPF (talk) 16:01, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

A repeating pattern with MPF who moves categories out to occupy the most important slot of taxonomy cats (Category:Tapera to Category:Tapera (Rio Grande do Sul)). There is a genus, a city and two rivers that start with Tapera, so you keep it as a disambiguation cat or you delete it. You better use your energy to make durable solutions instead of moving categories back and forward. --Foroa (talk) 16:07, 1 March 2013 (UTC)--Foroa (talk) 16:07, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Which just goes to show your personal vendetta against taxonomic categorisation (for which you have long been conspicuous, using the slightest pretext to get rid of taxonomic categories) - why have you not made similar changes for e.g. Category:Art, that you did for Category:Sylvia? You changed Category:Sylvia into a disambig on the spurious pretext of it being a forename (which aren't used for categorisation) so as to get rid of the taxon category. Now please do the same for Category:Art so that e.g. Category:Art Garfunkel isn't orphaned in the same way that you think Category:Sylvia Earle must be. And make similar disambig categories for every other forename, e.g. Category:Michael, Category:Peter, Category:Elizabeth, Category:Fred, Category:Paul, Category:Thomas, etc., etc., etc. . . . that these are all redlinks shows up your bias. And while you're at it, please use your energy to redesign Template:Genera and Template:Taxonavigation to make durable solutions so that they show the genus name correctly without that "(genus)" after Sylvia, etc. That these templates are currently buggered up by your disambiguated genus categories demonstrates a clear practical need for taxonomy categories to occupy the top slot - that is the sole reason why I give them that status. Solve it and I will remove my objections. - MPF (talk) 16:41, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

And why have you gone and changed things to suit your whims before establishing consensus for your changes, and before answering my points above? That is not appropriate behaviour for an administrator, it is what I expect from a vandal. And also - you changed my work (edit 14.13 UTC) within one minute (your edit 14.14 UTC) (see times). Why are you spying on everything I do? If I don't get a satisfactory explanation and apology for this behaviour within your next ten edits, you will be reported to the Administrators' noticeboard. - MPF (talk) 17:58, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

There are hundreds of categories with genus in it: Special:Search/intitle:Category:(Genus). And there are several taxonomy categories that are disambiguated themselves as there is a branch with the same genus for birds, plants, insects ...

I did not move Category:Tapera to Category:Tapera (Rio Grande do Sul), I created a new category for the one file that was filed in Category:Tapera, and retained Category:Tapera for its one subcategory (Category:Tapera naevia, which has been in Category:Tapera since its creation nearly 2 years ago). This disambiguation would be far more satisfactorily achieved by retaining Category:Tapera for the genus (which does not readily take a suffix), and adding a hatnote with links to the other categories which do take suffixes more easily (like Category:Tapera (Rio Grande do Sul)), as has been done abundantly elsewhere for solving disambiguation on Commons. Show me the Commons disambiguation policy page supporting your ideas. It does not exist. Oh, and I am still waiting for answers to my points above. Please answer them, and stop evading or ignoring the issues. - MPF (talk) 18:33, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't have "a strange definition of move" - I did nothing that used the CommonsDelinker commands for moving categories. And I am still waiting for answers to my points above (and also those which you never dealt with in that Sylvia discussion, either). - MPF (talk) 19:23, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

You have now rebroken the link from English Wikipedia to this category. The German, Spanish Portugese and French links are also all broken - but 3 of the 4 give you a click-through option. Currently all links from Wikipedias to this category are broken. Actions like these are what part of what contribute to the frustration of some English Wikipedians with the Commons systems. Rmhermen (talk) 20:09, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Categories are an internal organisation of Commons and will change all the time because most people think that they have a unique name, which they almost never have. If you got linked the en:wiki as I just did, you would have less of a problem.

The deletion summary of Category:Cisne Branco contains a clickable link, as clickable as the other redirects, but at least, it stimulates people to correct the link, which is better to me than a redirect that doesn't really works. Your recreation of the category is not acceptable as a misleading redirect: it should be rather a disambiguation page. There is a bot in the works that should run on the wikipedia sides to improve on that, but as long as people think they are exclusive owner of a term, there will be frustration on both sides. --Foroa (talk) 06:24, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

A disambiguation page needs substantial time to setup and to maintain (few people do such efforts)

A deletion summary with a clickable destination category motivates people to update the link on the requesting page. There are bots in the work to update automatically Wikipedia links to Commons by extracting the destination from the deletion summary. Such a bot cannot do something with a disambiguation category.

So personally, I prefer the deleted category but sometimes I create disambiguation categories (if I have time) to ensure that the slot is not taken by some other item.

This is not a Wikipedia, and I don't think that the history really matters, although it is interesting to know that the first use of the category was for Japan, which proves that it needs disambiguation. --Foroa (talk) 06:40, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, as mentioned I started a 'public discussion' at Category talk:Kochi (will copy thereafter that thread) ...

imho there was no need to delete the category, ok it's done, but please re-establish the category, and for me it's absolutely no problem to establish the needed "disambiguations" according to EN-WP.

your imho 'fast' deletion of the category occurred to about 40 miss-leading "red" links in other categories,

therefore, please fix the miss-leading links from time to time (was the 'work' of four years).

I understand the maintenance problem. Kind of tricky to make the parent category disappear. You could try to make a redirect from Doves to Pigeons in art, with a bit of luck, there will no (immediate) shouting, although we tend to have quicker negative reactions than constructive ones. --Foroa (talk) 16:33, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Regarding your recent reverts of my user cat edits: Can you please show me a consensus for demanding the use of {{User category}} or for the use of hidden cat. I have occasionally been discussing this for years and never has anyone produced such a consensus. /Dcastor (talk) 14:14, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I have no time to read the whole thing carefully, but you seem the only one opposing. Anyway, I am pretty much convinced that there is a consensus that non topical means hidden (which is not really hidden), and there is from time to time a bot that converts user categories into the template. --Foroa (talk) 07:52, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

If you are not interested in taking part in the discussion, nor to show one that establishes consensus, I will kindly request that you refrain from reverting my edits, which are in line with the current policy wording. /Dcastor (talk) 14:03, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I will bot move all your images in one single category because there is a consensus that there should not be ten of user categories. --Foroa (talk) 14:53, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello. Since we have over 200 photos of South by Southwest, I don't see that a page displaying only 3 of them is particularly useful. this edit suggests you disagree. What is your reasoning? Thanks. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 19:14, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

This is not a valid reason to delete (or bypass) a gallery; most galleries start small. --Foroa (talk) 19:26, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Agree that alone is not a reason to delete. However I note that only one user has ever added media to the page, and that was more than 3 years ago (and the user seems not to have been active on Commons for more than a year). The page seemed to me inactive and highly misleading as to the amount and scope of media on the subject on Commons. My thinking was that changing it to a link directly to the category would be more useful. Of course if anyone wished to remake the page as a serious curated gallery they could still do so. Thank you for your feedback. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 19:53, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

The railway specific problem is, that many train station names contain a "-". So its necessary to use the longer "–" for relation. The list how they are mixed-up (lightly) shows, that this version is much more common. --Andre de (talk) 11:30, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok, they are local categories, so you can do what's you judge best. --Foroa (talk) 11:27, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok. So please would you shift back your cat-moves? thanks, Andre de (talk) 21:54, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Foroa, I saw that you blocked him only for 2 weeks, what you need to do is to block him at least for 3 months. The last time he was blocked for a month he came back and continue with is un cooperative behavior. You know that nothing effect him. He will come back in 2 weeks and do the same. The time blocking should be grow up not down until the administrators in Commons will understand that Commons without him is better than with him. Please see also Category talk:Archaeological sites on the Golan Heights and Category talk:Archaeological sites in Samaria. Thanks Hanay (talk) 09:37, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Foroa, how are you? I saw that you reverted a couple of my edits concerning Category:Frogs. I don't really see the point of keeping that category in a multilingual project, to me it is vague and misleading, and it should be a redirect to Anura. Categories like Frogs in art or Frog warning signs have quite a few toad pictures, and it is more practical and makes the files more accesible to non-english speakers to keep everything in Anura. Also, in en:wikipedia Anura redirects to Frog. I am going to move all the files in Category:Frog eyes to Category:Ranidae eyes as all the photos belong to species in the family. I'll redirect, provisionally, the first one to Anura eyes. Kind regards. --Erfil (talk) 23:43, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Category:Frogs (that contains 3500 species) is needed as a base category for its various Frog based subcategories. We have to maintain the delicate coexistence between Category:Animals by common named groups and the scientific taxonomy categories, which rarely map one to one. People buy frog legs, see frogs in art, not Anura legs or Anura in art. We eat apples, not Malus. So in an international multilingual context, frogs are as important as the scientific names; suffice to have a look in Category:Frogs in art. --Foroa (talk) 08:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I see your point, but that is not multilingual is just english. For example, if I search Rana (=Frog) in es:wikipedia it will take me to Anura, and then I have a link to commons that will take me to Category:Anura. If I'm looking for "Ranas en el arte" I will have to know that Frog means Rana and then search there for it (not obvious at all). If I start the search directly in Commons I will have to know english or spend quite a few time searching for it. The good thing of scientific names is that at least they apply for all the languages, compared to apple, frog. People not only buy frog legs or see frogs in art, ellos compran ancas de ran y ven ranas en el arte, or acheter des cuisses de grenouilles et voir les grenouilles dans l'art. I don't see the point in keeping a category that fits pretty well with Anura, but I'm not going to insist more. I think all this is a general failure of Commons, so sorry if it looks like I am blaming you for this. --Erfil (talk) 16:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

If the world was so simple; there are hundreds of such overlapping category systems as you can see in Category:Organisms by common name. I don't think that by using exclusively Latin that you will solve the language problem. Anyway, for apes in heraldry, fruit, ... Try to translate the categories in Category:Musical instruments by material in Latin; after all, English is a workable compromise. --Foroa (talk) 16:58, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

If you move a long-standing category, can you please leave the appropriate category redirects behind (unless the redirect is misleading)? Category redirects aren't perfect, but they do not suck. If the cat has existed for a long time it is likely to be linked to - from other Wikimedia projects or external locations.

If you move the cat for disambiguation purposes, create the disambiguation category afterwards.

In both cases, there should be an actual page at the original location. Both provide the navigational links for users who might otherwise end up at a deleted page (forcing them to follow a deletion log comment is not appropriate).--Nilfanion (talk) 09:25, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Please do not delete categories after moving them but create redirects such as Category:Church interiors in Colombia. Certainly don't delete the redirect if someone else thinks it necessary! If you delete any further redirects I've created there - I will take it straight to AN. (In this particular case - the categories have been at that location for years - which is perfectly valid - just being deprecated for another valid English form. As this is a full deprecation, the redirects will not flood HotCat at all: The string starting "Church interiors" will be solely be these redirects).--Nilfanion (talk) 11:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

When I move, I check each act till it is empty, and then delete. I moved > 10000 cats per year, so I have to do it the most efficient way. --Foroa (talk) 12:01, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Efficiency is good. Breaking usability for our users (users means "readers" not "editors" in WP terms ) is bad. Whether you move 1 cat or 1 million, you should not be doing it by a bad practice. If you had a script that moves the category, and leave the appropriate redirect, would you find use it?--Nilfanion (talk) 12:13, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Leaving badly formed categories is just bad training and people tend to copy it for making other badly formed categories. There is a clickable link in the edit summary. Most categorisation (80 to 90 %) is done by dimple edition and preview, when they see a blue link, it is OK, only 10 or 20 % is using hotcat or Cat-a-lot. --Foroa (talk) 13:53, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Moved categories should leave redirects behind, that is Commons policy per Commons:Deletion policy. This is to ensure the usability of Commons for our audience (not Commoners) as then inward links don't get broken (from inside or outside), people get from the German name to the category (at its English equivalent) etc etc. That supersedes the inconvenience of inexperienced Commons users doing the wrong thing (which bots in any case eventually detect and correct).--Nilfanion (talk) 14:08, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Outgoing links should be corrected on the outgoing side, see [[User_talk:RussBot#What_about_a_nice_little_bot_.3F and I believe that Multichill works on something similar. In terms of usability, I think that I make and repair more links in one month than you in two years. --Foroa (talk) 14:19, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Its better to do a task once inefficiently but correctly than the same task 1,000 times efficiently but incorrectly - speed, no matter how fast, does not justify errors, if serious enough. You may well make and repair more links than me, but you undoubtedly break a lot more too (I'd expect a lot more activity in w:Special:Contributions/Foroa if you were checking/fixing every time). We have different editorial interests, so you can't expect our editoral behaviour to be comparable - its like comparing chalk to cheese. Same would go for any other user on Commons.

The root cause of all problems with redirects is the lack of the technical ability for proper redirects from categories. Everything else we do is a least-bad patch to cope with that.

The search function on Commons sucks (a more intelligent keyword-type search will win every time) - a complete ban on category redirects wouldn't aid that problem at all in general, as that problem needes a different solution than avoiding redirects. Compare that search to Google search.

With incoming links to Commons: It is impossible to fix them all at the source. It is possible to fix some of those affected links (those from WM projects). But you have no abilty to identify, nevermind alter, links from outside Wikimedia projects. As a responsible repository we need to ensure those external links don't break. That matters more at the file level - for attribution - but isn't it still applies at the category level. If I want to link to a selection of images of Foo I might add a link http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Foo in whatever it is I'm doing.

That is why stable URIs are a fundamentally good idea. As page names may need changing, so they may need moving and total stabilty is not viable. A redirect is then needed to retain that stability.

Having category redirects around makes maintenance tasks easier in general. For a start it allows a one-time bot run to convert them to real redirects if/when that's possible. Its probably easier for a bot-op to repair incoming WP links to cat redirects than to deleted pages. The bots will move a file from a category redirect if its erroneously uploaded there.

Category redirects resulting from a page move are qualitatively different to category redirects from synonyms. Links outside Commons are likely to have referred and may well be broken unless there's a redirect left behind. Redirects created from synonyms will not be targets for incoming links before they are created, and are extremely unlikely to become so after.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:27, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Disagree completely; outgoing links have to be corrected at the source, not on the destination. If you would categorise more intensely, and not apply mainly small patches with HotCat, you would understand, like most prolific categorisers do. --Foroa (talk) 05:52, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

The problem you are missing is it is not possible to correct all outgoing links at the source. While it is theorectically possible to fix the most important (those from WM projects), it is all but impossible to correct those from other websites and completely impossible to prevent it in offline links. We should not ignore non-Wikimedia users of Commons content.

That is why redirects should be left behind, unless there is a good reason not to (because its inaccurate etc). We don't want to point WP users at category redirects, any more than we want to point them at deleted pages, so we should fix outgoing links on WM projects - and I mean fix them, not tell a bot-op to code a bot to fix them and ignore the problem until he is done. Accusing me of being ill-informed doesn't make your case more credible.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:25, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

BTW, your attitude on this is very similar to that being referred to by Brion here - that's a different issue but why the hostility to redirects? Seriously, how does it help anyone? I'd point out R'n'B would find the bot task you have asked him about easier if he is able to identify the current correct target of the broken link. Having a redirect there makes that trivial and is a lot simpler than having to trawl the log.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:40, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Please see this on ANU. You may think the redirects I have recently recreated are not particularly useful, and I'm wasting my time, but I do think they are useful. I'm not going to get into a wheel-war with you over this.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:48, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello. Shouldn't this be "from Canada", as per COM:PEOPLECAT? If I've missed something, I can switch it back. Cheers.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:06, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, I hesitated; one could say that clergy is like people, a people group. But anyway, I thought that it would be better to harmonise with the other "Clergy of xxx", but personally I feel it would be better to harmonise them all to the from format. What do you think ? --Foroa (talk) 12:42, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

the brackets are unnecessary, as there is only one place with that name. Regards --Rosenzweigτ 14:49, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Gamburg without brackets etc. is also how the only Wikipedia article about the place is called: de:Gamburg. --Rosenzweigτ 15:04, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I moved Gamburg to Burg Gamburg because it created confusion. No need to recreate the confusion which is avoided by the disambiguation term. I think that there is another Gamburg, but I can't find it back right now, Gamburg is the family name for at least 3 persons., a name of a ship and Гамбург transliterates to Gamburg (and Hamburg in some cases). I hate to move, so I make sure that it will never happen again. --Foroa (talk) 15:21, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Good luck in finding this other place called Gamburg. Please let me know if you do so. --Rosenzweigτ 16:03, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Moving Gamburg to Burg Gamburg creates confusions! Because Gamburg is the city and Burg Gamburg is a housing area/building.That there are more places and names in the world with our name, we know. And by the way: the russian spelling of HAMBURG gives us nearly daily problems with train travellers arriving here in Gamburg(Tauber). Regards--Hokemo TV 09:38, 3 May 2013 (UTC)inhabitant of Gamburg

Hi. There's a question that I've been meaning to ask for some time, but I'm not sure where or who to ask: Regarding categories denoting where notable people are from, like People from New York City, and such, what do we do with people who were born in one city but raised in another, or with people who have lived in many different cities. Do we list them all, or should we list only ones that the subject identifies with? Is there a policy, guideline or consensus on this question? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 19:46, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there is in Commons:Category scheme People. Precisely because of this problem, we use "People of x place", which is wider than the "People from x place", so several places can be attached to one person. Problem is that for some countries, they want to stick to the en:wiki "People from x place" form. Anyway, when I see that the two forms exist, I merge them into one single one, which will eventually become "People from x place" one day. --Foroa (talk) 20:36, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

That addresses which preposition to use, but not my question above. Again, do we list every city in which a person has ever lived, or are we more restrictive in which ones to list? Nightscream (talk) 22:57, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Category scheme People states: Reasoning: "People of xxx" is preferred because it is a more open and wide term. It can contain the more narrow people "originating from, living in, worked in, died in" categories. . So, on Commons, we don't use normally "People from xxx" so that we can indeed assign them to several places. The occupations however are in the "Artist from xxx" form; the intention is to indicate where they operate from, so there might be several places too.

A problem that I forgot is that the "People of xxx" form is fairly well harmonised worldwide, except for the US and UK; mainly because the en:wiki uses the more restrictive "People from xxx" form, but that will be mass changed within a couple of months.

So basically, not to worry; there is no real restriction on using it whenever there is a semi-permanent or long-standing relationship between the person and the place. --Foroa (talk) 05:18, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Do we list every city that the person was born in and has lived in? Nightscream (talk) 08:11, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

We list every city that the person was born in and has lived in for a substantial amount of time. Not for temporary projects or exhibitions. --Foroa (talk) 08:18, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Foroa, why are you moving the German titled categories Category:Bahnstrecke Düren–Heimbach and Category:Bahnstrecke Jülich–Dalheim to English titles? I don't see the sense of this action, those are Germen railways and the cats are named same as articles in :de:wp: - which now link to nowhere on commons! So if you have no arguement for this, I'll move those cats back. Regards a×pdeHello! 21:52, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

There is no single reason to use a German category name when the English name is clear and understandable for everyone; that is the Commons naming rule; we will not use a Chinese, Arab or Russian version of Bahnstrecke because it is called so on the related Wikipedia. Deviations from the the English name are only acceptable for widely known items for which there is no identical name in English, such as Rittergüter, Studentenverbindungen, ... So, one day or another, all Bahnstrecke will be renamed, so don't come back to complain about broken links. --Foroa (talk) 05:23, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

If I remember right, there's a rule not to move any category just for the sake of having the name in English. Other language categories are allowed and there's no need to move those categories. If you can't provide any rule, that German railway categories imperatively have to be named in English, I will move those categories back! a×pdeHello! 13:14, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

There is no such rule, but a name harmonisation rule is more important. --Foroa (talk) 13:19, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

No! Commons is multilingual, there are even categories in Chinese or Japonese signs!

Category names should be in English; that's one of the few basic rules that most people agree upon. I merged indeed upon user request Category:Betuweroute into the long standing Category:Betuwelijn, because the latter is somewhat a semi-official proper name, but I agree that this names creates more confusion than it solves. So please don't call me dishonest or having private motives, especially for Dutch or Flemish, or because you feel attacked because I don't accept Bahnstrecke in stead of railway line. --Foroa (talk) 14:06, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, just curious to learn your rationale for renaming cat Auster to Auster Aircraft Limited, that seems a bit cumbersome. The aircraft manufacturer remains the primary use of Auster at en:WP, perhaps no confusion with Paul Auster etc? At Commons, we often put aircraft company names under Aircraft manufacturers, then the aircraft models under sub-cat eg Auster aircraft (small a) and Aircraft by manufacturer. MTIA, PeterWD (talk) 11:43, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

You would be surprised: try "Lenzing Germany" on Google maps. Nearly impossible to have a 6 letter word not used somewhere, strange enough not in the US or Australia (this time). Now corrected to Lenzing, Upper Austria. --Foroa (talk) 08:27, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I notice you've deleted this redirect. I use this redirect on talk pages on the English Wikipedia, to prevent talk pages from being blocked by China's firewall. China uses keyword-based censorship, meaning that if any link contains the word "Dalai Lama" on a specific page, it blocks the entire page, and users browsing from within China get a HTTP 404 when trying to access that particular talk page. -- 李博杰 | —Talkcontribs 08:11, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello. Undelete the cat. Category:Honeycomb (photography), please. Beauty dish is not the same as honeycomb. Honeycomb in photography is the part of softboxes etc... I am preparing the article for the cs wikipedia. For example see this: [10] or [11] - Thank You, --Svajcr (talk) 05:08, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I know, I hesitated, but the category was undocumented, not in plural and I don't think that the name is stating what it means. Category:Honeycomb light diffusers should express what it really means. --Foroa (talk) 06:36, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I noticed you may have reversed edits i have made. I was trying to clear and clean this page up as per talk page, it was all over the place. Why not make your thoughts known on the talk page? Babydoll0409 (talk) 19:50, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Blanking the page makes that the category appears several days later (again) in Special:UncategorizedCategories which we try to keep as empty as possible, but requires significant work as we have to analyse each case if it concerns vandalisme, mistakes, beginners work (that may need assistance) or just a plain categorisation problem. So following the standard procedure saves us all unnecessary work. This has already been asked to you by another administrator. Thank you and keep up the good work. --Foroa (talk) 14:54, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I apologise but i don't know all the procedures. In this example the category should not have been started as it would be "Village Greens in the Metropolitan Borough of Wirral" for example. Babydoll0409 (talk) 12:11, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Niet zeker: in en:Diogenes of Sinope#Notes : Laërtius & Hicks 1925, Ⅵ:41. Modern sources often say that Diogenes was looking for an "honest man", but in ancient sources he is simply looking for a "human" (anthrôpos). The unreasoning behavior of the people around him means that they do not qualify as human. En mijn klassiekers zijn meer dan roestig (+43 jaar). --Foroa (talk) 12:38, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I do not mean {{Bad name}}, your edits removed except the template is also useful content categories. I know English is very bad, so the link to the discussion for me is worthless. I just want to note that all localities in Belarus originally named it the Belarusian, who is still, despite the Russification of the country as a part of the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union, is the national and official language, but because the name should be transliterated exclusively with the Belarusian language. This is what was provided for in the law in 2007, which was approved by the UN. I hope that Google Translator mastered the meaning of my message will be clear to you :) --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 13:22, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I think that I do understand your problem; I would be pretty helpless on the Russian or Belarusian wikipedia too. We have on Belarusian village/city category naming a fundamental problem, a problem that exist in many countries that have several official languages, often made even more difficult by invasion/colonisation by other cultures.

As far as understand, there are two official languages in Belarus and Russian is the main language, used by 72% of the population, while Belarusian, the second official language, is only used by 11.9%. Minorities also speak Polish, Ukrainian and Eastern Yiddish. So I assumed that all village names would be in Russian, but that might be wrong. I do know that fighting about names and all related edit wars, as we had in Ukraine, Spain, Basque country, ... doesn't help none of us.

Anyway, the best way out is to agree upon a formal list of city/village names and import that here in Commons. To facilitate that, you could try to discuss it with user:EugeneZelenko who is bureaucrat, very helpful and very busy, User:Renessaince or user:Kaganer who is Russian, but very helpful. --Foroa (talk) 07:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Foroa, you have been reverting several changes I've done in categories. I would love to know why. --NaBUru38 (talk) 16:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, because we discussed some of it already, for example in User_talk:Foroa/archive_2012#Category:Buildings_in_Foo. So basically, the following categories are main categories or topics for which the large majority of images is downloaded and that people should find right away:

Buildings (and not hide it behind culture/architecture of xxx). In Beijing, architecture is redirected to buildings.

People (and not hide it behind culture/society/ of xxx)

Military in many countries where war and related industry plays an important role.

By the way, I think that you are wrong by hiding military and law underneath politics. Politics might drive to some extent the government, but in most countries, it is the government that controls laws, police and military.

Most media are photographs, so photographs is not a major topic, only for special cases, so no reason to put it on the top of the country category; it is just a topic as any other; we don't want to ,mislead people and push them to navigate in photograph categories to find a topic.

Before you change structures in Belgium, please read Category talk:Belgium; the structures are optimised for easy categorisation AND navigation. --Foroa (talk) 16:28, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Please, do not move back to Category:Via de' Benci (Florence). It's the only street in Italy named like that, no need of disambiguation, Thank you. I am a resident photographer in Florence, I cannot get mad if you change me all the cat names everytime without any notice and reasonable purpouse. Thank you. --Sailko (talk) 21:23, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I can understand that for you, Florence is the centre of the world, but that is not the case for Commons. I am getting tired of your moves to remove disambiguating terms because you find Florence entitled to carry the exclusive name, and the other less important ones, have to disambiguate. While most Italian contributors understand that systematic disambiguation settles the name once and for all, while keeping a systematic naming approach, you keep removing disambiguations. Many, if not most of the non disambiguated streets in category:Streets in Florence do exist in other cities, and I don't plan to waste my time to move them each time there is a conflict and a need for disambiguation. So I am warning you, next time I have to rename a street because a street with the same name pops up in another place, I will disambiguate with the bot all the streets in Florence. Most churches in Florence had to be renamed because of your Florence-centric approach, which is a gigantic waste of time. Fortunately, for the streets, the problem is understood in most cities in most countries. --Foroa (talk) 06:02, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Please reply to my discussion page, I came back here just for casualty. I know there were sometimes mistakes in the past, and I apologize. Even if it is false that the churches category names were renamed after my fault: I just gave up moving back Santa Maria del Fiore (Florence), even if no other churches in the world have such name. Category names should be kept simple. There is no apparent reason why we should have Category:Van Gogh Museum (not "Category:Van Gogh Museum (Amsterdam)") and Category:Pinacoteca di Brera (Milan), for instance. Are the users from Amsterdam less "systematic" that the Milanese ones? Also, you should leave category redirects, if you delete the previous category you miss a link from wikipedias, etc. The longest the name is, the most difficult is to remeber it when you search it, for any reason. It is not a matter of Florence-centering, I would do right the same in any other city, if I had pictures to upload. Mostly, your approach is not appropriate for an administrator, it looks like you want to start an edit war, without advising the users if you find a mistake, especially on multiple times and especially about a subject your are not specialized in. I just did not notice and remeber how many time I moved a cat, so I wrote you as soon as I noticed. And next time you would find a conflict, instead of threatening to mess up a category, before any moving or deleting, let me know please, so in case I can also change the links from wikipedias. I don't think it will happen any often, anyway. --Sailko (talk) 11:48, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

This images arent Belgian Grenadiers, they are French! And second in 1815 Belgium didn't exist. This proves again and again that you don't know anything about the matter. Please remove the categorie of the Belgian Grenadiers. On this page it is Raininig complaints about your categorisation, non stop! If you do not stop this non-sense; i will have to mark you for your disruptive behaviour. You never ask advise, you just don't listen to advise you are given. Carolus (talk) 14:27, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

In all categories related to history, the reference is the current political constellation. A painter from Bruges from 1503 is a painter from Belgium in the first place. De Guldensporenslag is in Belgium, but is part of the history of Belgium and France. A reenactement in Belgium of a grenadier from France belongs to Grenadiers in France and Belgium. --Foroa (talk) 06:59, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I am really sorry, but honestly i doubt your historical intelligence...what you are telling is actually just sad and ridiculous...if a picture taken of Hitler in Belgium, you will say Belgian dictator? Please...just go elsewhere to tell people this kind of craziness...and don't wast the time of other people who try to make Commons work.you are performing disruptive behavior. Carolus (talk) 17:38, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

That's the way history is classified here. If you don't stop reverting, you will be blocked for longer. --Foroa (talk) 17:45, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Foroa, you're missbehaving when blocking an user you have an edit war with! And your "you will be blocked for longer" is clearly exactly what no admin should do! a×pdeHello! 18:40, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I am fed up with that user behaving as his contributions are his own and insulting all people that try to touch his files. He was almost blocked for that some years ago on his lace categories and got similar community problems on the dutch wikipedia where he was blocked indef. If he disagrees with things, he has to follow COM:CFD or any other procedure. If he disagree with the description of an image, he can mark it as facts disputed, not reverting things all the time. This is a really simple case of bad faith, otherwise I would not block him, I don't believe I have a history of quick blockings. --Foroa (talk) 18:47, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

If you are edit warring with a user, it's at least a conflict of interests to block this user. You should have made this behaviour public and ask some fellow admins to proceed in this case. Even if you're right with what you've said above, now that you've blocked him you weakened your position! a×pdeHello! 19:09, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

That's right. Therefore, I request that a Dutch speaking administrator evaluates the bad faith, rudeness and totally irresponsible behaviour of Carolus, which made in my judgment the block justified. --Foroa (talk) 19:18, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

The categories with hyphens you wanted to move (thank you for the great work) are there nicely and consistently since 3 years, so certainly no reason to degrade the situation while annoying potentially the 700 clients that might be linked to it.

I change the way that User:Шуйская is removed from the categories, in a way that I think would still allow her to copy across her work once she has 'gotten the hang of' the coding and article-writing, without needing to remember the list. I did it like this can you check that it still does exactly what you wanted it to do, that there are no mistakes I make ? Please reply on my tp if that's ok. Penyulap☏ 08:54, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi again Foroa, sorry that I must speak out against your mistake at AN, it is not a good way to make friends, I do hope that you will know how to fix what you've done there, so everything will be better than before. Penyulap☏ 12:11, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

If you would have followed and understood all his actions and discussions, you would have realised that this person has a serious community problem. --Foroa (talk) 16:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

It is quite possible, but there is no talkpage, and the only thing I could find is here on your talkpage, and it looks quite heated. Is there more on commons ? it may be there is some external reason, but it is a very alarming thing for editors here to watch an admin block someone they are in the middle of an edit war with, that is how it looks, and they only did 2 edits, you did 3, I'm not saying you don't have a reason, but look at how other people who only know what they see on commons think, it is alarming don't you think ? Penyulap☏ 17:43, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Please, when you rename any category, if the name has not an evident mistake (like mispelling), leave a category redirect, like here. Commons categories are linked with "Commonscat" and similar from local wikipedias, and it is difficult to image and search the new names. Thank you. --Sailko (talk) 13:40, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Evident capitalisation mistake, if we have to maintain millions of such redirects for the nearly 3 million cats, the system will become unusable. The new category is as clickable in the edit summary as the redirect. --Foroa (talk) 15:31, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

There is no difference of leaving a redirect or not for the system. We can keep as many millions as we want, servers are powerful enough. Please do, I explained you why already. Also if someone memorized the old name and upload new images there, a bot can move it to the proper category, but if there is no redirect it won't. Thank you. PS: I also mentioned how the correct palce for reply to me is here. Administrators should be more user friendly. Thanks. --Sailko (talk) 15:49, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Foroa - I know you like making categories into disambigs; here's one that badly needs to be made into one: Category:Hawthorn, with its current classification moved to [Category:Hawthorn, Co Durham] (or similar) - MPF (talk) 07:07, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

No I hate making them, and I even hate it more to untangle them. Category:Non-empty disambiguation categories requires and awful lot of maintenance work, while 95 % of the wrong items in them are just overcats. Very few people are keeping those disambiguation pages up to date. So basically, I would prefer that such categories are deleted and locked but in the mean time, I suppose I have to live with them. (As far as I know, there is no single wikipedia that accepts disambiguation categories). I will clean it out Category:Hawthorn later, but you dont have to wait for me. --Foroa (talk) 08:10, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I've cleared it out. Must admit, I am surprised you hate making them, I really thought you did like them. In which case, I'd make a plea again for the 'undisambiguation' of Category:Sylvia, that one really isn't necessary to be a disambig, as first names are never used for categorisation. The other genus names you've made into disambigs I can see there is a case for, but that one, there really isn't. Anything other than species of the genus Sylvia that gets put there can far more easily be tackled by keeping a casual eye on it, which I can do just as I do for numerous other genus cats which acquire rare miscategorised files. - MPF (talk) 13:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, dear MPF, you keep surprising me too. I thought that with the experience with Category:Hawthorn where:

Category:Hawthorn took us more than a hour to clean up, while it was an easy one as taxon's is your speciality, it is close to the area where you are living and they where mostly in your language

So I fail to understand any advantage to create such a mix (and work) attracting category such as Category:Sylvia by making it a taxon category. For recall, to me the best solution is no category at all AND locked so that nobody can use the slot as people try all the time. The disambiguation is the next best solution, but I have my doubt on it. --Foroa (talk) 06:07, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Could you please undelete Category:Pi.1415926535? I created it as an intentional category redirect; when I'm doing mass uploads, the shorter category name is useful for sorting. Thanks! Pi.1415926535 (talk) 15:41, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I understand why based on those it should not be a category with any content, but I don't follow why it's disallowed as a redirect for auto-sorting uploads. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 15:59, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Most users that do significant categorisation work are happy with a category that is blue. To search one, they will type "Category:Pi" in the search box and take the first one that seems reasonable. For HotCat and cat-a-lot, they will only type Pi and take the first one that looks reasonable; they don't tend to look back if the tool has changed it. And Commons:Category redirects suck. --Foroa (talk) 16:19, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I created it for when I'm adding categories when uploading; "Pi.1" gets me the category quicker than "Photographs by User:Pi.1" and for that upload form the redirect does work. Do you know if there's any way to customize the upload form to automatically add the full category, just like adding &uselang=ownwork to Special:Upload automatically adds my username? (I've also asked at MediaWiki talk:Uploadtext/ownwork. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:16, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

A small template, such as {{User Pi.14}} might include the category. --Foroa (talk) 13:40, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Please, try to think like a human and not like a badly programmed bot. Don't confuse an unique local name (try to search by http://maps.google.cz or other map) with all images their description contains similar words. --ŠJů (talk) 00:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Please, try to think like a human and not like a badly programmed bot when creating categories for street names Category:Streets in Prague by name. If someone would create categories for street names in any other language that translate to Transition, China, Europe, English, Africa, Argentina, ..., they wouldn't stay long time. Remember the one and only commons basic naming rule: a category name should allow to guess the name of the subject. So a big part of the culture in the Czech republic seems to stop in the streets of Prague. If you would work a bit more on Special:WantedCategories, you would maybe understand. --Foroa (talk) 08:54, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

First, all Commons naming start with the main topic first as this is the most flexible naming schema that is consistent across all levels (world/country/state/city/building). As you can see in Special:Categories&from=Interiors+of+churches, they are already widely adopted, but leave place too for for future categories, such as Roccoco interiots of Gothic chuches in ...". I guess taat you currently don't bother for your museum, but eventually, it will be possible to naviagate for museum contents, not the their building or surrounding.

I am a bit surprised that nobody seems to contest the standard naming of "Paintings by xx in museum y", while the "interior/room/division" of museum xxx seems to create problems in a few cases. In the long run, we are all better of with a predictable naming.

I am sure that you will appreciate a consistent naming style, but the older style <museum name> - <Interior> did exist in tens of variations: hyphens, slashes, colons or 3 different dashes, with and without spacing, interior and interiors, with and without capital I, ... Moreover, those categories cannot be deepened (style/period/...) to have a finer specification without switching to yet another naming style.

Hi, would you please explain your speedy deletion of Category:National Arboretum. As it was already being used (by mistake), and the U.S. National Arboretum is returned for the first 5 Google search result pages (I didn't check further) when searching for "National Arboretum," it seems like a natural redirect. I myself had trouble finding the category at first because I searched Commons for "National Arboretum." I personally don't think it should be deleted at all per Commons:Rename a category#Should the old category be deleted?, but I definitely don't think a speedy was the right call, and would appreciate being notified in the future when pages I create are deleted. Thank you. --PeterTalk 17:35, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

We are not Google and Commons is for the whole world. On Commons, there are already images of national arboreta of Australia, France, UK, Israel and Korea. There will doubtless be others in Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russia, Greek ... countries that will translate to national arboretum. The redirect you created this morning was misleading. --Foroa (talk) 18:08, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Is there a way to create a disambiguation page of sorts? --PeterTalk 19:06, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

We are probably the only wikiproject that supports category disambiguation. It requires a lot of attention and work to keep Category:Non-empty disambiguation categories empty, while most of the time, they contain items that are overcategorised while they seem to attract quite some bot categorisation (although this has been improved last months). Sometimes, things are hanging there for months, while very few user bother to maintain their content; users bother even less to update the terms. So basically, we use it to occupy the slot to avoid that someone else take it and to disambiguate things that have a real different meaning, especially when the same word means different things in several languages. So it doesn't make sense to create an alternative disambiguation cat to serve the "National arboretum" needs; if you want it absolutely, one could create a parallel national arboretum tree, but I doubt that this will help the project. --Foroa (talk) 14:52, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Please have another think about reverting the changes to Category:Selby. The present situation is frankly a mess, with categories split between the district (the normal minimum level we go down to in the United Kingdom, except in cases where there are a great many files), the civil parish, and the settlement within the civil parish (which to all intents and purposes is identical to the civil parish). I realise that the intention was to try to reduce confusion, but the end result has been to cause further confusion with some categories subcategories of Category:Selby (town), some subcategories of Category:Selby (civil parish), and some even listed as "XXX in Selby (town and civil parish)]]. This doesn't serve anyone trying to navigate round the category system well, particularly for such a small district as Selby (no larger than many medium sized European municipalities). At this stage, it is far better to have a common system categorised at the district level, linking through to the categories at county level, with the files also located in the category for the civil parish. Skinsmoke (talk) 09:03, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

My main concern is that you convert disambiguation pages which are there for a very good reason into your own category. See En:Selby (disambiguation): There are several other Selby places in at least 5 countries. So don't come here to complain about the additional mess you did create. --Foroa (talk) 09:08, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

What happened to observing the niceties of being polite to other users? Not one of those other places you mention is even referred to on the disambiguation page (probably because we don't appear to have any categories for the "Selbys" in Australia, Canada, South Africa or the United States), which merely disambiguates between (1) Selby (town); (2) Selby (civil parish), which contains no settlements other than Selby; and (3) the District of Selby. There is no reason to have separate categories for the "town" and "civil parish", as the only difference between the two is a few fields. Previous discussions concerning places in Yorkshire specifically ruled out establishing separate categories for the settlement and the civil parish in such cases. Disambiguation between the settlement/civil parish and the district is usually achieved in the United Kingdom by titling the district category "District of XXX", "Borough of XXX" or "City of XXX". If it is felt that further disambiguation is required, then the settlement/civil parish categories could be titled "Selby, North Yorkshire" to disambiguate from any of the other Selbys should categories ever be created for them. Skinsmoke (talk) 09:26, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't consider hijacking of a needed disambiguation category as very polite. It is up to you to organise the various UK dimensions of Selby, but normally, polite people talk with the authors of the split categories before renaming and/or merging them all. --Foroa (talk) 10:25, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Do you think we can try and move forwards with this to try and find a solution? I presume that you are saying that the disambiguation category is there as a placement in case categories are created for the "Selbys" in other countries. That wasn't immediately obvious. Would my suggestion above about having a combined category at the settlement/civil parish level named Category:Selby, North Yorkshire resolve your concerns (as I mentioned earlier, this would be the normal pattern when further disambiguation is required in the United Kingdom)? That would leave the disambiguation page to point to Category:Selby, North Yorkshire and Category:District of Selby. The "XXX in ..." categories can then be moved to their more normal position as subcategories of Category:District of Selby, as the general view appears to be that having such categories at the parish level is overcategorisation (unless, of course, the categories at the district level become so large as to be unwieldy). The breaking down to parish level also caused some of the links to the categories at county level to be lost, and that can be repaired at the same time. Skinsmoke (talk) 10:47, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, we try to anticipate future disambiguation slots as each move of a parent category involves often more subcat moves and problems. (not to mention the mix-up and subsequent untangling)

I think that for places, the old logic of splitting in deeper categories if it becomes too crowded, is a counter-productive logic. We are better of with a logic that is based on the fact, that within a few years, the category will contain ten times more images, so we better get it right from the beginning.

But I have indeed my doubts about the split of the Selby town from the Selby parish. Separate categories make only sense when there are really distinct towns/quarters/villages with a clear own identity. The sooner they are created, the easier new images will "fall" in it. For many areas, we would have been far more productive in bot-creating all hamlets/villages upfront. So it is quite possible indeed that Selby, Yorkshire is a more logical organisation; it is up to you as the original author doesn't seem to be active any more since a couple of months. --Foroa (talk) 11:29, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I'll have a go later today. Thanks to Geograph's 3.4 million images (which have swamped British categories, causing all sorts of problems, but providing thousands of really good images, we already appear to be at a situation of having ten times more images for British categories (if the German Geograph project ever takes off—it's only at 35,000 images so far—you'll get the same problems and oportunities over in Europe too). There are some doubts about the ability of Geograph to expand significantly (though I suspect it will continue to do so—we'll just have to wait and see). In any case, it will probably take us 20 years to get the images already imported into meaningful categories, not to mention getting them out of the incorrect categories where they have already been placed, often by bots (It's quite common to find images of Wales turning up in Scottish, or even Australian or American categories).

For the United Kingdom, categories for all villages, towns and hamlets were indeed created by bot up front. It isn't always straight forward, as images of the same feature frequently finish up in categories for different adjoining settlements (very often, they get placed in the category for a nearby town or larger village), but at least it's a starting point, and slowly they get repatriated. The problem is that settlements have no defined boundaries, so it's often better to use civil parishes (in Europe that would be commune/gemeinde), where the boundaries are clearly defined on some maps, and I suppose the same argument would apply to, say, ortsteile in Germany, former municipalities in Belgium etc. If the bot-generated categories had not been available before the Geograph onslaught hit British categories, I shudder to think what would have happened! Skinsmoke (talk) 12:41, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

You are probably right, Geograph was a good start and test case, but I did spend many days moving things because there was no proper disambiguation approach to start with (why I get nervous when it gets removed). That explains indeed the many things from small quarters such as in Leeds that we founnd back in Canada. Campaigns like Category:Images from Wiki Loves Monuments 2012 are quite stressing as there are many novices loading hundreds of thousands of images in a couple of weeks. And anyway, it is sufficient to have a photo scavenger hunt organised in one town to increase the media volume with one or two orders of magnitude.

I think that you would be surprised how people are keen on their hamlets/quarters and have them clearly distinguished from the "big" entity, even when it is not always clear on official maps, you can bet that they will know the difference. Leeds contains "only" 130 places for now, but I bet that there are at least 3 times more. --Foroa (talk) 14:52, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh, believe me, nothing would really surprise me on local identity. My own settlement, Bredbury, in Greater Manchester, ceased to be a separate civil parish in the 1860s. It includes an area, Woodley, that has never had a separate administrative existence, and yet the people of the two settlements maintain distinct identities, even though nobody can agree where the boundary is. To the extent that one street has Woodley United Reformed Church, Bredbury Vicarage, Woodley Electrical Supplies, Bredbury House and Bredbury Police Station all intermingled and within a few hundred metres of each other. I was thinking more, though, of some of the rural categories that were bot created, where the settlement consists of two farms and a phonebox, and which only appear on the most detailed map (if then), where even the handful of residents are surprised to find they are within a distinct community. Such examples aren't really a problem, providing they are also linked into the larger village/civil parish, so that users searching for images at least get a nudge to look there. At the moment, in the United Kingdom it's usually easier and more reliable to search for images on Geograph using their gridsquare based search function, then try to upload the image and find it is already on Commons, than it is to search for it in the Commons category system. I suspect this will be the case for many years to come, and am not sure there is a "fix" for that problem, unless we were to develop a search facility using geographic coordinates in some way. Skinsmoke (talk) 17:27, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Such a RI_xxx-yyy is useless for normal Commons users, they only know names and would never find those RI-xxx-yyy things. I am under the impression that you are the only one creating such categories, so if you don't believe me, it might be better to discuss this with the concerned people. --Foroa (talk) 10:24, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi there! I saw your edit of the 'ethnic costumes' category. What is an ethnic costume if it's not tied to people of a certain nation, region or country? If you look at the definition of http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:National_costumes they are the same, I think. National is also a nice solution to do away with the term 'ethnic', which can easily become racist. --Judithcomm (talk) 17:43, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Most countries have several ethnic groups, and many ethnics are spread over several countries. So don't try to tell that a Kurdish costume = National Turkish costume. Its tricky. --Foroa (talk) 17:51, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Depends on what you call 'national'. To me this has to do with nations: not so much people from the same country, but people from the same background, like Armenians all over the world. They have their own culture, like music and dance. My problem with 'ethnic' is that is almost always refers to non-US, non-Western-European people as 'others'. Tricky indeed. Would the traditional dress from let's say Volendam in the Netherlands be called ethnic by the Dutch? Even Frisians, who even have their own official language - Holland has two official languages - are never referred to as an ethnic group. Why would that be, you think? --Judithcomm (talk) 18:50, 17 May 2013 (UTC) P.s. We kunnen deze discussie ook voortzetten in het Nederlands als je wilt ;-)

Good luck to differentiate en:Ethnic groups in Europe where you seem to forget that in the Dutch ethnic group, you have the Zeeuws people, and the various Flemish groups. I guess that it is arguable that they are really ethnic groups, categorising them under folkloric group might avoid that type of discussions. And what to do with the diaspora in South Africa, the Antilles, ... where you feel clearly some connections with that group. --Foroa (talk) 08:46, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Interesting those European ethnic groups. I never saw such a map before. Indo-European seems to have a different meaning from the one I have used all my life. My 'connection' is with Frisians and Indo's (meaning part Dutch and part Indonesian). Folkloric would be the word for me. Folklore can be associated with all skincolours.--Judithcomm (talk) 16:18, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Please read the discussion on the "Counties of Scotland" that you renamed "Former Counties of Scotland" and move the category to "Shires of Scotland". Scotire (talk) 18:53, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll just point out that although some consensus seems to have arisen, this CFD has not yet been open for the usual seven days and others may still wish to add comments. Cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 19:17, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for starting the census map categories for me. I'm hoping to write a script to mass create them when I've figured out the names of all the subcats, so don't put too much effort into structuring them at this stage. --99of9 (talk) 20:49, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I am just trying to bring Special:WantedCategories to a reasonable and exploitable level, which is not easy when bots are creating thousands of categories. Many of those categories are hanging there for several years, which is not a real solution neither. I gave up trying to categorise your fast growing set of categories, so I just put them all together where you can easily find them. --Foroa (talk) 05:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

That's perfect. I agree that's a very useful page when it's manageable - it would be nice if it updated more often. --99of9 (talk) 08:53, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, an update per day would allow us to catch quickly (semi-)batch uploaders, especially the ones that add twenty invalid categories to one set of images that finally belong in one specific category, such as File:Dr_Tajamul_Islam_Shah_15.jpg. --Foroa (talk) 09:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Hey Foroa, it wasn't really an "edit war" (at least it wasn't intended to be). Anyway, we have resolved the issue, and I'll recreate that category, ok? Sorry for any inconvenience.--- DarwinAhoy! 21:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

You have been lucky, probably because you are Portuguese. Normally, user:Tm reverts back again and again to his preferred category name, as Portuguese as possible and without any consideration for the international community, as he tried with Category:Norte Region, Portugal. He rarely engages in a discussion, just reverts. Several times per year, there are complaints on his behaviour on the AN notice board, but nothing really happens, so most people give up or shy away of working in Portugal or Commons altogether. So my experience with such cases is that in preventive locking out some of the categories, it creates the time to calm down the situation and opens the way for a discussion. Problem is that I have sometimes complaints that I should not lock things in which I am involved (although they don't care about the real problem). So, I locked it to give you some time, avoid escalation and if needed result in a discussion, which worked this time, exceptionally, for you. SO feel free to do whatever is needed, I was just giving a hand. --Foroa (talk) 05:57, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I suspect your protection played a vital role in this issue. I know his case, and was already preparing myself to embrace a painful and time-wasting situation at the administrators board once again, but this time, surprisingly, he stopped the reversions and exposed his arguments (which had some logic, after all, tough in this case I still preferred the English version. But when all the major countries use those cultural heritage categories on their own language, it's difficult to argue back). I know about what happened to others, it's very unfortunate, and I can understand them. Blind reversions are one of the most unnerving things in this kind of project. Can turn a very pleasant experience in an hell. I see he was blocked some time ago, when there is no cooperation, that's the way to go. Thank you very much, --- DarwinAhoy! 09:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, In the Category:Businesspeople from the United States, I'm puzzled by people categories sorted under "?" instead of under the name of the person. As in this example: [19]. How does that work exactly?

Another question: In the category Writers from Canada, I see the Category:Le plus populaire du monde by Jacques Savoie What is this category for?

I am working hard on Special:UncategorizedCategories and Special:WantedCategories to keep those lists at a reasonable level (say more than three thousand categories per month). I cannot afford to categorise and document completely all categories as it is next to impossible to do it in all domains in a reasonable amount of time, from a small town in China, Russia or India, to a special issue in chemistry and a music instrument speciality. So when I feel that a category belongs in a fairly well developed class where there are quite some other people working, I just steer it then in the right direction with a question mark key to signal that it is only a rough categorisation.

Unfortunately, some people "correct" that by just adding a "proper" sort key, so they just disappear in the list and become unnoticed. I completed Category:Conrad Hilton to show what I consider a more complete categorisation.

In areas under development or where there are beginners active, I spend some more time in helping structuring and documenting categories as needed.

Request that category moves are better documented in edit summary[edit]

Hi. I am repeatedly being poked by people not liking category moves, this usually follows my doing a removal or catredirect from the commands page. I am asking all admins who add category moves if they would please look to better document the moves that are being ordered for SieBot. As background, I asked Siebrand if there was a better means to automate the "who ordered" statement, but he is unable to do so, such we are going to need to do this manually. Thanks for your cooperation. — billinghurstsDrewth 00:17, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, I will try to add the name of the requester on COM:DL batches, that should ease the down tracking. Note that some people add it in the reason field of the move template; it is however not visible in normal display. I don't think that it is technically feasible to carry the reason field in SieBots move edit summary; the current information is more important (although the from field could be possibly dropped). But it could be inserted in the talk page of the destination category. --Foroa (talk) 06:55, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

That's because the Queensland bot uploader came back to life and started filling up many moved categories in Australia. As you can see here, if those routing tables are not updated, the bot will keep filling them up. I corrected already some of them, but I have only two hands, the bot never sleeps ... --Foroa (talk) 09:41, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Look, I tried to respect what you were telling me, but as far as I can see it's your personal opinion. In looking at other places, I don't see consistency in how those things are structured. Can't you point me to where some consensus was reached about this? --Auntof6 (talk) 08:20, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Mogelzahn. I cannot see a reason for it. Bezirk Altona is definitely the main meaning of "Altona". NNW 20:33, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "main meaning" on Commons, except for countries, (former) country capitals and some national symbols. For precisely this reason, we disambiguate whenvere there is a doubt. You know very well that there are several meanings for it (It is even not the main meaning on de:Altona), moreover Category:Altona, Hamburg has a different names as on most wikipedias. --Foroa (talk) 08:03, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

The naming scheme for articles at de:WP differs from commons usage. As Altona is a district (now, formerly a town on its own for a very long time) the lemma is de:Bezirk Altona. But the common short version is "Altona". "Altona, Hamburg" is rubbish. To keep it disambiguate and to have a consistent system for the Hamburg districts I suggest Category:Bezirk Altona and the same for the other districts. With one districts out of a scheme this is difficult to handle for people which aren't fulltime Wikimedians. NNW 09:55, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

could you tell me how you found in almost no time that Category:Trekshoes, Haarle should be categorized under Category:Haarle, Hellendoorn and why my comment "which should be a disambiguation category, note the numbers 20482424, ...2425, 6, 7" should stay (though on another line)?

It's quite possible that I overlooked something (and then my comment should be deleted, I think), but what did I miss? --80.114.178.7 23:05, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

That's experience. Trekshoes doesn't sound right and most probably does not exist; not the first time we have wrong names from the Rijksdienst. Terphoes Molenweg Haarle is probably closer. When looking in the georeferenties from the Rijksdienst, you are in the Hellendoorn area. In general, consecutive RCE numbers are created in the same batch and belong to the same place. There are often mistakes in the database, it takes a lot of time and detective work to find out (we found a RCE batch about a castle in Maastricht back in Liège, Belgium because it was from the same architect as another castle in Maastricht). Anyway, for proper checking everything is next to impossible. The best chance is that they are categorised as close as possible. Even when it is wrong, you have a chance that it is detected by local people, when it remains uncategorised or in a disambiguation page, it might stay there for ever. --Foroa (talk) 06:17, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Trekshoes doesn't sound that bad, I don't who/what Trek(s) is, but the farm would be named Trekshoes, Trekshuus, Trekshuis, Trek(s)man, or Trek(s/k)ink. In both Haarles (Hellendoorn/Tubbergen), one doesn't need terps, which seems to rule out Terphoes. --80.114.178.7 08:29, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I edit in the Hellendoorn area (I was born there), but I do not know Trekshoes. That doesn't mean much, Haarle in Hellendoorn is south-east of Nijverdal and my parents (and grandparents &c.) were from the north-west. In Category:Haarle, Hellendoorn the chances that people from Tubbergen recognize the name are rather slim. If I would know that Trekshoes isn't in Hellendoorn (because, say, in Haarle, people say "huus" instead of "hoes"). I would have placed it in Tubbergen. --80.114.178.7 08:32, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I tried it: the only result which doesn't strike "terphoes" is http://en.cybo.com/NL/lemselo/social_agencies/?p=17 which talks about "'t Terphoes" in Enschede, and "de Molle" in Haarle, Hellendoorn (and many other "Social Agencies", of whom almost none are in Lemselo (it is the 17th page of a dump of a rather eager bot). Why do you think that page would be relevant? --80.114.178.7 10:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I've fixed the cooldown thing and made the log work. Would you please unblock my bot? (Currently testing on main account.) --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 11:24, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

That cleanout of the double redirects seems to be a great job. I should have mentioned that redirected categories should never be categorised themselves in another category. (they can however refer to other categories)

Don't forget that there are a number of templates that do the same job:

RussBot is currently stalled for some reason, so I prefer not unblock your bot till RussBot terminates his batch to avoid possible interferences. --Foroa (talk) 17:17, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

It's likely terminated (might be because of the bug made in updating posted on mw:User talk:Xqt#Bug) -- it haven't made any edit since 08:43, 31 May 2013 (UTC). --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 01:44, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

When, do you think, you can unblock it? --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 08:37, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

RussBot still runs strangely. I am awaiting a reply from its operator. It doesn't look as if you corrected all the double redirects. --Foroa (talk) 15:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Might be. It's running too slow -- only several edits in a few hours. I'm trying to make the three parts (hard redirect checking, double redirect fixing, and category moving) of the script category_redirect.py into different parts so that it can run less jobs. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 10:44, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Why yor revert my moves? I hav reverted the movs by Edits an ex-Translate administrator. This user has done all wrong. I hav taken 1,5 hour to fix all problems on the Licensing page. Klick. Greetings--Steinsplitter (talk) 06:45, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello! It is better like this, yes, as the simple number category makes more sense to show up as one in the parent cat "by number", while the split categories make more sense under each series’ listing. -- Tuválkin✉ 17:21, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, we spend quite some energy to keep Category:Non-empty disambiguation categories tidy, why I trapped your category. In general, it is not a good idea to have categories that forward link to categories that it contain as this creates maintenance/consistency problems. --Foroa (talk) 05:24, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Can you name another museum called "Bishop Museum"?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:10, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

There are several, but here on commons, the first ones that come to mind are the Benny Bishop Museum and the Bishop's museum in Trier. --Foroa (talk) 14:24, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

hahahahaha !!!!!!!!! that is wrongly translated the correct name should be episcopal museum. the adjective of bishop is episcopal, and nothing else. by the way the one from Trier is called Bischöfliches Dom- und Diözesanmuseum Trier. Carolus (talk) 10:38, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but Category:Ixi is not acceptable; There can be millions of Ixi things, we are heading for millions of categories and a category name must be clear about its contents. I created Category:Ixi (vocalist) for you. --Foroa (talk) 08:47, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

As a personal comment to you: As you propably remarked or perhaps do remind, imho I have 'bad experiencies' respectively 'serious dificulties' regarding 'discussions' on user talks, i.e. a (too) long list was leading to a (seriously) 'mental blockation' in such 'discussions' again and again, see p.e. as of June 11, 2013, and too many more. In 'real life' i'm (honestly) an old men with 'tense nerves' and 'tired' in "talkings about everything" instead of "do something usefull work" to support Wikimedia commons.

As an administrator 'of my confidence' (once again, please excuse my bad written English), I beg to 'block' my pages User:Roland zh and User talk:Roland zh for further edits by Wikimedians, 'freezing' the status quo as of June 11, 2013.

Dear Foroa and Túrelio, thank you very much, both of you :-) As also told directly to Túrelio, his effort I appreciate very much, it's perfect. As mentioned, imho in future there should no need for further updates of my Wikimedia sites on user-level, but your offer it's very kind, thank you! My best greetings, Roland zh 17:50, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Dear Foroa, i kindly ask you, so it's possible for you, to intervent above mentioned matter, as there imho seems to be a serious problem i requested some minutes ago. Thank you very much so you may mediate and best regards, Roland zh 23:05, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Hey Foroa, I saw you deleted the category Category:Autocomplete in which I collected the screencast tutorials to build an autocomplete service. I named it accordingly to the wikipedia article in the english wikipedia. How should I have named the category and why didn't you rename it? --Renepick (talk) 12:11, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your various hints! I was always confused on how categories in commons should be used. I thought that Autocomplete is this dedicated category (much more than neo4j or gwt which are just exchangable technologies being used to explain how to create an autocomplete service I will read all your linked articles and see how to proceed if I have any further questions I will contact you again --Renepick (talk) 13:23, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Sure, CD is a label that stands for "Corps Diplomatique", not for Diplomatic Corps. I made that category recently to contain all things that are related to the label. Over time, there will be plenty of things to fill up Category:Diplomatic corps. --Foroa (talk) 17:32, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

OK. It's a bit confusing because "corps diplomatique" is, of course, still in common use (as evidenced by the labels), so it's difficult to tell that it's supposed to be specifically about CD designations used by the diplomatic corps, rather than about the corps itself. I guess the labels should be moved to whatever is decided for that subcategory. --Closeapple (talk) 18:06, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

So what have you accomplished with your change ? Just an American reflex ? --Foroa (talk) 20:35, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

This is obviously a controversial move. This large category is there, uncontested, since almost 8 years, both names are common, it fits will with the parent categories and with many wikipedias. Overall naming seems more consistent than the en:Wiki versions. --Foroa (talk) 05:54, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

This is a faulty category name, the # sign is not supported in category names, but anyway, in your case, faulty or non existing categories should not be taken into account. --Foroa (talk) 12:49, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Foroa, I noticed you have been renaming some painter categories, which is all fine, but I noticed you are not leaving behind a category redirect. For example I noticed these diffs: 08:58, 28 November 2012 Foroa (talk | contribs) deleted page Category:Lucas Cranach d. J. (Category:Lucas Cranach d. J. moved to Category:Lucas Cranach the Younger) 21:05, 28 August 2012 Fastily (talk | contribs) deleted page Category:Lucas Cranach d. J. (Empty category) Apparently this category is now Lucas Cranach the Younger, which is fine, but I think we still need a category redirect for Lucas Cranach d. J., or it will probably be created again by some well-meaning German GLAM. For situations like this one, which you deleted due to the pre-existance of [:Category:William Allan (painter)|this one]] I think a disambiguation category is needed, or at least a category redirect that can later become a disambiguation category. What do you think? I have been told that redirects are fine and do not hurt the project in any way, but increase search capabilities, so I always leave a redirect when merging categories and never request a deletion (or leave it empty, which will get it deleted for emptiness). Jane023 (talk) 11:11, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I delete all moved categories that are based on a naming which is not compliant to Commons naming style (d J/Ä, ...) and the ones that are misleading. Note that when I delete them, you have a clickable destination in the deletion edit summary. You can create a disambiguation category if you want, but then I hope that you will help to maintain them (See Category:Non-empty disambiguation categories). Most people drop things in the first category that they find acceptable, so that the majority of items in Category:Non-empty disambiguation categories are just lazy and/or double categorisations to make sure they have it all, so basically, disambiguation pages (that tend to be badly maintained) are essentially creating more maintenance work. --Foroa (talk) 05:29, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for taking an interest. If you want to improve any of the category mapping please do work them in. It does not affect Faebot's work immediately, but will help me improve it through later changes. It is a giant task, at the moment Faebot has been tackling a subset of "middle" England for several weeks and is on Page 105,380 out of a filtered suspect list of 714,703 Other non-Commons stuff is filling my time right now, but I hope to return to spend time reworking this around August and perhaps hit the rest of England, and possibly Scotland and Ireland, shortly afterwards. BTW, my watchlist is extremely long, it is worth dropping a note on my user talk page to ensure I spot changes. --Fæ (talk) 17:52, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Not at all, as I mentioned earlier, the precise details of what categories should be auto-created and in how far the defined rules are active should be on an isolated/special page (now on Bot Work request, but those disappear in archives). The bot request is concerning the authorisation to execute those rules. --Foroa (talk) 05:44, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but I can't understand what you mean. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 06:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Hi, maybe it's not quite clear why recently two or three pictures were put on top of the main catagory of some Dutch cities.

This was especcially done, because since the Rijksdienst voor het Erfgoed has released its whole archive by simply 'throwing' all its old images, no matter their quality and relevance, in out of all the main catogory of many Dutch places, these catagories since months already are not exactly what visitors are supposed to expect them to be, namely the main page where they immediately can get an impression of what pictures are present relevant to the place they're interested in.

As a matter of fact like this these catagories in many cases are a very big mess, now that hundreds and sometimes thousands of black-white images about often most uninteresting subjects (like indoor construction details of buildings (like ruinous farm houses)) are filling these main catagories and thus making the more recent images as good as unvisible.

Of course the best thing that should happen would be, when he or those who uploaded this tidal wave of questionable images, would be forced to take care they all are catagorised in a proper way.

But as long as this has not happened, it is estimated to be most usefull, when visitors are offered an at least minimal impression of the quality images that are present, through some of them being showed on top of the main page. Therefore, it would be appreciated, when (at least as long as the current situation lasts) these show images will not be removed any more (like happened for instance here: [21])

I agree that the massive uploads from "Rijksdienst voor het Erfgoed" have not been thought out carefully, but that is partially due to the lack of experience and the lack of the knowledge of its precise contents. As one can see in Category:Rijksmonumenten categories to be classified on which I already worked several weeks, and the number of people working on it, it will take several years before they get cleaned out. This is even more difficult because the file names are unclear, so difficult to move with Cat-a-lot.

Anyway, I've got the same feeling of frustration as you when some cats are flooded with hardly usable images, while the better ones disappear under the snow. But including some of them in the category description, besides jeopardising the category system, is no real systematic solution. I moved some images already to the top of the category display by giving a sort key. This is a quick work around hack, no systematic solution but still better than yours. I guess that the only permanent solutions for the worst cases is to isolate those images in proper subcategories (which is a pain too considering the fact that the building name is not in the file name) or to create separate categories such as "Buildings in xxx (RCE)" or so. --Foroa (talk) 06:42, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

"I guess that the only permanent solutions for the worst cases is to isolate those images in proper subcategories (which is a pain too considering the fact that the building name is not in the file name) or to create separate categories such as "Buildings in xxx (RCE)" or so."

A catagory "Black/white images of buildings in the 20th century" was created soon after hundreds of those images were put into the Delft main catagory. But the uploader of those images removed it and told its creator to "be very carefull" (or something like that) "because these are three different subjects in one catagory".

Maybe one or more superiors in the Commons-hiërarchy can force him to take care that all those images as yet will be put into a catagory with a that informative (to visitors) name (no matter how many subjects it contains).

By the way on first sight it seems not quite sure that this Rijksdienst (governmental service) is acting juridically correct by publishing all these images (including many that were made inside private buildings) worldwide in a way like this.

@Natubico, yeeh,... laws are made by governments, but if need be, the officials go ahead and change or simply ignore them. :-D Lotje ʘ‿ʘ (talk) 05:02, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

User Natubico apparently has some preconceived ideas about Commons that are not common on Commons, as far as I know. His remarks above: "black-white images about often most uninteresting subjects (like indoor construction details of buildings (like ruinous farm houses)) are filling these main catagories", "this tidal wave of questionable images", and "quality images that are present, through some of them being showed on top of the main page" are very much POV statements. His request "show images will not be removed" shows a lack of understanding of the function of Commons, a database (an online repository of free-use images, sound, and other media files), not a showcase. --VanBuren (talk) 13:16, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

You are not right. At first, you are in conflict with your opponent, so you should not protect this page, you should ask other sysop. And secondly, in English Wikipedia category has name Category:Administrative okrugs of Moscow, and we should use this name. If you are disagree, you should rename firstly in English WIkipedia.--Anatoliy (talk) 19:00, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't care how it is named, I care about naming consistency. Changing the name would require renaming of several subcategories and significant/complex changes in {{Districts of Moscow}} navigation template that is used now in 17 places, but potentially in several hundreds of categories. Moreover, it has to be seen if the districts of the same level city Saint Petersburg has to be renamed too.

So this is not a conflict with an opponent, just a change that has several implications that have to be organised, and not just by redirecting a category. --Foroa (talk) 08:24, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Foroa, I just want you to remember, when you change the category name, this afflicted several interwikilinks and the creator template. I fixed it. Could wikida help?Oursana (talk) 09:37, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I asked in 2012 for a move of Category:Voie Verte to Category:Voies Vertes, but the move-request did not show up in the requested moves categories. I did a new move request which also does not show up. Can you move the category? Thanks. --Havang(nl) (talk) 19:26, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Hello, Foroa, I made for communes DOMTOM France a LIST of equivalent commons categorie names; some turned out to be red, I added the actually existing blue category name as well. AntonyB from projet communes France sur Wikipedia has commented this list, doing category name proposals. Can you have a look and mark with #OKE# the names you agree on with AntonyB and which may be changed without further discussion as trivial improvements. For the others we may make a move proposal.--Havang(nl) (talk) 12:40, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

I don't know if you're still around anymore. I restored the category since it's not empty anymore. If that was wrong, please leave me a message so we can do what is necessary. Thank you. Royalbroil 13:51, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Hi Foroa - I suspect Category:Guadalupe would be better made into a disambig; I just emptied out a whole lot of pics that weren't of the current subject (Isla Guadalupe off Mexico). My preference would be to move the current cat to Category:Isla Guadalupe (the local name), but Category:Guadalupe Island (English translation) may fit Commons policy better. Any thoughts? - MPF (talk) 22:40, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, MPF, I do not know where Foroa is hanging out these days, therefore I keep an eye on his userpage. As to your question, if you ask me, Category:Guadalupe Island seems logical.Lotje (talk) 06:26, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I actually just made the Category:Guadalupe Island and created the "Guadalupe" disambiguation category, looking for all existing links and possible targets for disambiguating it, and sorting the existing contents that were mixed in the ambiguous category (except images that were insufficiently geolocalized). There are certainly many other uses of the name "Guadalupe" around the world, more could be listed in the disambiguation page (I tried to document the locations or topics precisely for each one to help recategorizing the contents correctly).

Note that I also renamed the former page "Guadalupe" which was also ambiguous but not about the same topic as the island that was previously documented in the category.

Lotje is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person.Lotje (talk) 16:56, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Dear Foroa, I am writing to inform you that you are in danger of losing your adminship on Commons because of inactivity.

If you want to keep your adminship, you need both to sign at Commons:Administrators/Inactivity section/Feb-Mar 2014 within 30 days of today's date, and also to make at least five further admin actions in the following six months. Anyone who does not do so will automatically lose administrator rights.

Hi Foroa! This is just to inform you that earlier today, you had your adminship privileges revoked on Meta by a Wikimedia steward; as you are an experienced editor, I added you to the autopatrolled user group (which doesn't affect your editing anyway). Thank you for you service as an administrator, and I hope you will stay active on Commons as a regular contributor. Of course, please do feel free to re-apply for adminship when you get more active :-) Thank you! odder (talk) 14:06, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Hello Foroa! I don't think that this category page should have been moved. "Brighton Museum & Art Gallery" is the official name of the attraction, but the category name's now been changed to "Museum and Art Gallery, Brighton, East Sussex", which is descriptive, but not the attraction's actual name. If you look at the picture of the outside of the building, you'll see that its official name is spelled out in metal letters on the side of its wall: ErkDemon (talk) 03:25, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Good day Foroa. It seems I made of mess of a categorization system that you developed, which I only came across (luckily) today. I started creating Category:Buildings and structures in the Azores, and specifically Category:Buildings and structures in Vila do Corvo, when I noticed you and your colleagues had determined the irrelevance of the categories, of which I do not contend. Call it "a lack of knowledge of the structure of the WikiCommons categories". I was hoping, in your off-time, if you could find a way to delete these categories? I have re:categorized the images and sub-categories into their appropriate groups, I just need to eliminate the offending categories. Oh, and also, there seems to be a category about a lighthouse that, really, has no images. Is there a way to remove that as well? I am sorry to be a problem. I guess I am still a newbie here. ruben jcZEORYMER (talk) 10:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)~

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Hi Foroa! I hope you are well. I miss your fruitful interactions in the past here on Commons. I hope that one day, you will be back with us. I add your name to Commons:We miss you. But it is clear that I am not the only one missing your kindness, to working with you, and your constructive work. We all wait that you come back! Take care, --DenghiùComm (talk) 14:51, 27 July 2015 (UTC)